To Mr R Murdoch,
I am not one
that would question your intelligence and abilities as a businessman and there
is not many in the world that could seeing as the empire you have built, yet I was
very intrigued to discover that from 2009 consumers were only to read The Times
if they pay.This action of yours left me a tad bit confused. I use to think your
main motive was for the people being up to date with news but your action
clearly states you don’t care about the people; you want as much profit as
possible. Where I thought the people were your priority, the truth is that
money is your priority. You believe that if you are successful other newspapers
will follow you and do the same. Well maybe this could’ve worked when newspapers
first went online but since consumers have got the taste of free news and the
rapid growth of social network sites have grown it might be to late to
implement your idea. There are many flaws in your idea, not all newspapers put
up a ‘pay wall’ and the ones that don’t will become more popular. The rapid
growth in the popularity of social networks such as Face book and Twitter would
allow one subscriber to share the news to hundreds/thousands of people. The
impact of citizen journalism has caused edited/mediated news to seem untrue to
an extent. Taking all this into account I think you need to utilize what you
have got to its maximum potential and use advertising to gain your profits
rather than a ‘pay wall’. I believe that you need to sort your priorities out
and understand how important the people are after all, what are newspapers
without the people?
Thank You
I am sure you have heard James say "It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it". I stand by this. As a businessman, of course it is in my best interest to make a profit; allowing free news to be spread across the net limits competition which affects your own economy. Also, most news websites aren't technically free, license fee payers for example in the UK fund the BBC. If the BBC is guaranteed a healthy fixed income, why aren't the rest of us?
ReplyDeleteAbout the point you made about me not caring about people receiving up to date news, why would I be in this business if I didn't care about that, there are other far profitable businesses I could be involved with. I could even have sold all of me news titles to concentrate on TV but I didn't because I share the belief (with my son James) that "state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision" for example, the BBC. Having the government shrewdly fund a world renowned organisation to inform people through "non-biased" journalists could be argued as communism.
PS: Claim your exclusive offer of half price subscription now at www.thetimes.co.uk/
I can't click on the link so can't subscribe, soz bro.
ReplyDeletetype in the times in google
ReplyDeletei just hacked your phone and downloaded the app, check
ReplyDeletesend me the link to google bro
ReplyDelete